TRANSDUCTIVE SCIENCESCIENCE AFTER HUMANS / 001ED. 01 / 2026
W29 / Bias

HARKing

A post-hoc explanation is presented as if it were the prediction that motivated the work.

01 / Source of departure [W29] ↗

What the reference describes.

HARKing (hypothesizing after the results are known) is an acronym coined by social psychologist Norbert Kerr that refers to the questionable research practice of "presenting a post hoc hypothesis in the introduction of a research report as if it were an a priori hypothesis". Hence, a key characteristic of HARKing is that post hoc hypothesizing is falsely portrayed as a priori hypothesizing. HARKing may occur when a researcher tests an a priori hypothesis but then omits that hypothesis from their research report after they find out the results of their test. Post hoc analysis or post hoc theorizing then may lead to a post hoc hypothesis.
Shortened extract from “HARKing”, English Wikipedia contributors, revision 1359619333; original text licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Excerpt shortened, line breaks normalized. For full article references and edit history, open the fixed source revision. The independent critique below is not Wikipedia text.
02 / Inherited constraint

What the process still cannot guarantee.

A post-hoc explanation is presented as if it were the prediction that motivated the work.

That is a design criticism of how this research operation may be used, not a claim that the encyclopedia endorses the limitation. In this domain, the general redesign question is: human and machine distortions move from behavioral advice into enforceable evidence-lineage constraints.

03 / Machine-native reconstruction

Replace the mechanism.

Timestamp candidate hypotheses and distinguish discovered patterns from genuinely prospective tests.

Implementation requires a typed scientific claim, explicit operational definitions, controlled access to evidence, an immutable record of relevant transformations, and independent checking appropriate to the kind of assertion. An AI-generated interpretation without those checks would reproduce the underlying failure at greater speed.

04 / Adversarial acceptance test

What would demonstrate improvement?

Compare declared predictions against immutable research traces.

Compare with a defined baseline under matched resources, keep evaluation cases independent of the system under test, and measure both false alarms and undetected errors. Publish any negative or inconclusive result as part of the same investigation record.

Unresolved requirement. These are proposed experiments, not completed demonstrations. Better generated explanations are not proof of better scientific inference.
05 / Adjacent evidence

Continue across concepts.

Each related title has its own revision-specific Wikipedia source and a separate critical dossier. Crosslinks are exploratory; they do not imply the encyclopedia articles support the proposed replacement.

06 / Verification & provenance

No single authority.

The reference article establishes the historical and methodological subject under examination. The proposed criticism and replacement must earn their own support through reproducible tests and independent validation. Record disagreements instead of silently overwriting them.

Current Wikipedia article ↗ · Exact reference revision ↗ · Complete source ledger ↗